Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"it received generally positive reviews from critics"[edit]

I was wondering when we at Wikipedia can stop lying through our dirty teeth in articles ? Skcin7 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no lies and you are not being constructive at all. Please see the FAQs and previous discussions about this topic above. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam. This discussion has been started in bad faith, is not collaborative, and clearly WP:NOTHERE. All content in this article and the season articles is reliably sourced. You personally don't like the show? Shame. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I removed it as not a forum, but I guess someone thought otherwise. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is written by Amazon's apologists and fails WP:NPOV. There are many bad reviews, for instance, the show is called 'a massive flop' by Forbes and 'a stinker' by The Guardian etc. The fact that the first season was only finished by 37 percent of its initial U.S. viewers and 45 percent of international viewers should be in the article, but it doesn't match the agenda. (and it's not my point of view, it's WP:RS, in my point of view as a Tolkien fan this show is shockingly bad and has nothing to do with Tolkien). --Corwin of Amber (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point of view fascinates me; I've never heard anything like it. Do you by chance have a pamphlet or weblog where I might learn more? Dumuzid (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the article it is the greatest show ever, most-watched of any Prime Video original series, and it received generally positive reviews from critics, but somehow the first season was only finished by 37 percent of its initial U.S. viewers... --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't make it through the first episode, let alone the entire season. Dumuzid (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid This is not a forum. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 37% figure doesn't have a legitimate basis. Streaming shows have 7-day CRs, 28-day CRs, 90-day CRs, and 365-day CRs. The most commonly reported one is the 28-day CR. If that's the case here, then the 28-day CR is a mid-season report (which, incidentally, matches Stranger Things's 37% mid-season report for Season 1). CR's are a snapshot-in-time measurement, not an *ever* measurement, so we don't even know what it covers What it definitely does NOT mean is that only 37% of viewers *ever* finished watching the first season. 2601:840:4201:9F80:A30E:B0A8:B5C0:FC69 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's entirely a point of view as a fan. All this is likely already described in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1). And the article says none of that final stuff, stop trying to make up nonsense; also, last time I checked, viewers ≠ critics. If you're going to contribute to an encyclopedia, remain neutral. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there is a clear editorial bias. 'Amazon considered', 'Amazon said'... It's not Amazon PR website. The information about 37 percent should be in this article, not only in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1), because it reflects the quality of the series. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So fix it, and remember: the statistic by itself is trivial, add critical analysis concerning the statistic. It also relates to the viewership of the first season, hence existing, naturally, in the first season article. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the audience response relating to the first season needs only to exist in the first season article, why is the critics response relating just to the first season allowed to exist in the overall The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power article's "Reception" category? It paints a one-sided picture of the whole reception of a show widely known to have received a polarized reaction (sources can be found, indeed, in the season 1 article). This gives the potential impression that the objectivity of this article on a billion-dollar investment might be compromised. I'd suggest to nuance the conceivable bias and imprecise interpretation given in the "Reception" category by adding a brief summary of the audience response alongside the critics response in order to more accurately reflect the actual reception of the show. Pagina18 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has a brief summary of the first season's reception section because this article is about the series as a whole. It is very difficult to create a summary of the first season's audience response section that is both brief and doesn't cause any issues with those who have strong opinions about this topic, the full section is able to go into the detail needed to accurately represent the full response. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point still stands: if this is an article about the series as a whole, why present a brief summary of the critics response and not the audience response? If there's an easy way to create a brief summary of the critics response, there's an easy way to present the audience response as well. The difficulty of the task at hand is not inherent to the writing but to the writer. This isn't an arbitrary stance, either: the audience response was objectively polarized and should be noted in order to retain unbiased objectivity and not compromise the article's nature. The "Reception" category already summarizes the statistical percentages concerning critical opinion. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic show the same kind of statistics to determine audience reception. The difference here is that one piece of information is arbitrarily disregarded and the other is not. Pagina18 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION. The reasoning is there. Feel free to disagree or advocate for a change, but for the moment it's the way things are done. Per the cited section, however, you can certainly introduce reliable sources talking about the audience reception. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, from the Season 1 article:
    • Darren Franich from Entertainment Weekly expressed a negative opinion
    • Stuart Heritage, writing in The Guardian, described the series as "inept"
    • Rolling Stone commented that one could wish the series would do more with less
    • Ed Power from The Irish Times and The Daily Telegraph was critical
    That's just four. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to participate in edit wars, I just want the information to be added. As for the first season article, we only have one season so there is no point to hide the information about the viewership in another article. I think that Nielsen ratings also should be added. 'Despite boasting high-profile intellectual property, its high price tag, and a powerful marketing machine supporting it, the first season of The Rings of Power failed to break into the top 10 of Nielsen’s most watched original streaming series of 2022. The Rings of Power took 15th place on the list.' (from THR) --Corwin of Amber (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have two seasons - one has aired, one is well into post-production, thus data on the ratings of the first season will naturally be in the first season article, that's why we split season articles out. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is being hidden, the full ratings details for the first season are displayed in great detail at the first season's article, including the series being 15th place on Nielsen's end of year list. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Corwin of Amber Here is the talk page if you wish to keep discussing the content. Remember, you yourself stated I don't want to participate in edit wars. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want the article to be consistent. Either you delete the opinion of Salke in Viewership section OR add the opinion of Kim Masters (NOT ONLY THE FACTS about 37%) that "the show was less defining than hoped, falling short of being the breakout hit that Amazon had envisioned" (maybe also this: "A 50 percent completion rate would be a solid but not spectacular result, according to insiders." and "The show has not been a major awards contender, either, overlooked by the major guilds with the exception of one SAG-AFTRA nomination for stunt ensemble"). In that case it will meet WP:NPOV, otherwise you give a true fact and the opinion of only one side (interested party), which fails NPOV. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimatums aren't collaborative, "it's this or that". The statement is reliably sourced; whether you think it's a "fact" or not is not relevant, you can read more on that sort of situation at WP:VNT. If you've stated that the section is called "Viewership", then how does awards and accolades relate to that section at all? -- Alex_21 TALK 13:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird statement, where have you seen any "ultimatums"? I just said the article should be consistent and logical. The numbers ARE facts, it's not "my" view, your view or Salke's view, it's viewership unbiased numbers. Then Salke's biased opinion is given, which doesn't meet WP:NPOV because the whole article in The Hollywood Reporter states the opposite: the viewiership numbers reflects "Confusion and Frustration". --Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the 37% figure is that it is a) outdated and b) not corroborated. Typically, streaming series have a 7-Day, 28-Day, and 90-Day completion rate metric, but we don't know which this 37%/45% report from THR was. If it was the 7-Day or 28-Day report (28-day is most like), then the entire series was not yet published for consumption by then. It wasn't completely available until 45 days after the first two episodes dropped. Amazon knew that this would impact the 7-Day and 27-Day CR, but they also reported quite a long time ago that the CR spiked after Oct 14, 2022 when the final episode was posted. This 37% figure is absolutely not accurate today. 2601:840:4201:9F80:F4DE:D4DA:6A38:4ACC (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can cite multiple reliable sources stating that the series did NOT receive (generally) positive reviews from critics, please do so. Otherwise I don't see the point of this chit-chat. ภץאคгöร 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We discuss certain topics (see above), please answer to them or don't participate in this "chit-chat". --Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the above. It's just a back and forth about "how bad this show I don't like is". -- Alex_21 TALK 23:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have nothing to answer about Salke's opinion and THR facts. Ok, Salke's opinion is irrelevant and I will delete it. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are nine full archives worth of conversations reiterating the exact same points over and over, and there will certainly be more once the second season rolls around. I'm not sure what makes this article particularly controversial compared to any other piece of media. I'm not a fan of the show at this point either, but some editors seem to misunderstand the premise of Wikipedia, as well as the core pillars and policies guiding its development. TNstingray (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they misunderstand and keep adding Amazon's biased opinions violating WP:NPOV. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Corwin of Amber Please be aware that you are very close to violating WP:EW and WP:3RR. You can say "they misunderstand", but the article completely conforms with WP:PST and WP:SECONDARY, in which the content is sourced that a secondary source that contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry @Alex 21 but you continue to ignore my points: "The numbers ARE facts, it's not "my" view, your view or Salke's view, it's viewership unbiased numbers. Then Salke's biased opinion is given, which doesn't meet WP:NPOV because the whole article in The Hollywood Reporter states the opposite". The same points are in Den of Geek article: "A tepid response to season 1, both from fans and critics", "In April, viewership data released by THR revealed that only 37 percent of US and 45 percent of international audiences actually watched the first season of The Rings of Power all the way through, a less than desirable result for a show that is said to be the most expensive ever produced. It suggests that, while early episodes attracted a large audience, the majority of viewers on both sides of the pond lost interest in the show long before the season finale", "The Rings of Power Star Responds to Negative Season 1 Feedback". Multiple sources state that there was a negative feedback. Why should we add Salke's biased opinion and and ignore the secondary sources stating the opposite? --Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Corwin, you make reasonable points, but you must realize--Wikipedia is ultimately based on consensus, and the most important way to achieve consensus is through persuasion. Your approach might be more effective if you kept that in mind, rather than assuming that you are objectively correct as to what belongs in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” --Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this relate to the discussion at hand or the idea of consensus at all? Do you believe 1984 connects to Rings of Power somehow? -- Alex_21 TALK 05:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This "consensus" reminds 1984 a lot. This topic can be closed, I see no point in proving obvious things anymore. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Scene: Eric Blair sits, regarding the stark beauty of Jura. Thoughtfully scratching his chin, he says to no one in particular, "Well, the Spanish Civil War was bad. And World War II offers a bleak vision of the future. But it will be with nerd fights on the internet that true tyranny lies." Dumuzid (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you wanting to cherrypick the THR source to only include Masters' perspective while ignoring the stated comments of the head of Amazon Studios? It is factual that both statements were made, and both perspectives presented. TNstingray (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits[edit]

i don't think any serious lotr scholar will disagree, factually, with the edits for which you're trying to get consensus.


there are surely dozens of acceptable sources, and given proper placement in the article, it would be likely discussed.


the fandom is exacting.


Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits this user made are already covered in Wikipedia-appropriate ways, they clearly just feel that our wording isn't biased enough against the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity for User:Skcin7 to state their case[edit]

@Skcin7. You can state your case here, and we can discuss how to properly include the information you are wanting to include. Please consider reading through the blue links under "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this page before doing so. Thanks. TNstingray (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, let me bring some consensus possibilities to weight.
Right now this area is only stating the professional critics view and not the audience critic view on the same website about the same show. There we have over 25.000+ ratings with a score of 38%.
Maybe it could be written:
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a Score of 83% approval by critics for the first season based on 489 reviews in contrast to the Audience score of more than 25.000 ratings and a score of 38% approval.
same for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power_season_1#Reception
--2003:DF:A72F:9F00:C11B:2E24:1152:C660 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVRECEPTION. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:USERGEN. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power&oldid=1225339451"